 |
||
|
May/June 2007 Supreme
Court Holds That Later Effects of Past Discrimination
This case involved a female employee who sued her employer for sex discrimination. Ledbetter alleged that several of her supervisors had in the past given her poor evaluations because of her sex. Because her pay was tied to her performance, she claimed that she was paid less than her male colleagues because of the discriminatory evaluations, and that the lower pay continued throughout her employment. However, her past performance evaluations were conducted outside of the 180-day filing period set by Title VII. (In some jurisdictions the filing period is 300 days, but here the relevant period was 180 days.) She did not allege that her most current pay raise was made with discriminatory intent. She filed a lawsuit against her employer under Title VII. The Court specifically stated that current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination. The Court rejected Ledbetter’s argument that each paycheck was a separate discriminatory act. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff should have filed her charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days after each alleged discriminatory employment decision that was made and communicated to her. The Court further held that the EEOC charging period is triggered when a discreet, unlawful employment practice takes place. Since the plaintiff filed her charge well beyond 180 days from her previous performance evaluations, she could not consider those previous evaluations as part of her claim of gender-based discrimination. Kristine
E. Kwong, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Los Angeles, California.
|
||
|
FEEDBACK EMAIL
NEWSLETTER HELP DISCLAIMER CONTACT
US © 2007 IIR California, Inc. |
||
In
a recent landmark ruling, the United States Supreme Court held that
the later effects of past discrimination do not restart the time period
for filing a charge with the EEOC. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company (2007).